USCIS Announces Enhanced Security Vetting and Adjudication Pause Updates

Effective April 27, 2026, USCIS implemented a new, enhanced security vetting process that has resulted in temporary “holds” on adjudications requiring fingerprint-based background checks. While not formally characterized as a blanket pause, the new process has delayed the issuance of approvals across numerous case types, including adjustment of status, asylum, naturalization, family-based petitions, humanitarian applications, and employment-based filings.

What’s Under the Updated Protocol?

Under the updated protocol, USCIS must resubmit fingerprint information for most pending cases in which biometrics were collected prior to April 27, 2026. This resubmission, with the goal of enhancing national security screening, is part of an expanded background check process tied to increased access to FBI criminal history databases (pursuant to Executive Order 12385). It has introduced an additional procedural hurdle before decisions can be finalized. Historically, USCIS reused existing fingerprints and did not require applicants to appear repeatedly for new fingerprints unless they discovered an issue or much time had passed.

Although benefits interviews already scheduled are expected to proceed, the issuance of approvals is largely paused until the new vetting process is completed. Officers have also reportedly been instructed not to initiate new fingerprint checks for cases they intend to deny, meaning the additional screening is focused primarily on cases moving toward approval.

In addition to timing delays, the enhanced vetting process is expected to increase scrutiny of applicants’ backgrounds. With greater access to detailed criminal history data, USCIS may issue more Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), including for matters that previously drew less attention, such as non-conviction arrests, juvenile records, or sealed cases.

Recent Update: Lifting of Adjudication Pause for Physicians

Shortly after implementation of these broader holds, USCIS made a notable policy adjustment affecting medical professionals. In early May 2026, the agency quietly lifted adjudication holds for cases involving foreign physicians, allowing their applications to resume processing.

This change appears to be a targeted exemption within the broader vetting framework and applies to immigration benefits associated with physicians, including H-1B petitions, J-1 waiver applications, and employment-based immigrant petitions.

The exemption reflects growing concern about the impact of adjudication delays on the U.S. healthcare system. Foreign-trained physicians make up a significant portion of the medical workforce, and the earlier pause had raised alarms about staffing shortages and disruptions to patient care. By removing physicians from the hold, USCIS has allowed thousands of delayed cases to move forward, though applicants remain subject to the same expanded background checks that apply to other categories.

Importantly, there will not be a formal “unpause” notice issued to applicants. Instead, affected physicians are expected to monitor their case status for movement, such as new notices, interview scheduling, or adjudicative action. This development suggests that USCIS may continue to carve out additional exceptions for other critical categories, even as the overall vetting overhaul remains in effect.

Conclusion

The April 2026 vetting changes represent a major operational shift toward more intensive background screening at USCIS, with likely impacts on processing times and adjudication practices. While the recent lifting of the pause for physicians offers a limited but meaningful reprieve, many applicants remain subject to adjudication holds pending completion of the new fingerprint-based checks. Foreign nationals should prepare to experience extended delays and heightened scrutiny, while also monitoring for further category-specific exemptions as USCIS refines implementation of its new vetting system.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC or Clark Hill Solicitors LLP. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.